Brady Phelps

I can imagine a calendar in some physicist’s office that might say, “On this date in history, the Big Bang happened a long, long, long time ago ?” In terms of more “recent” events, Galileo changed the world in 1609 ? For the better. In 1859, Darwin changed the world again ? And again for the better. To see the universe and life by the light of reality is preferable to ignorance and darkness. We don’t know when the Big Bang happened but we know that Galileo and Darwin changed the world. To honor Galileo and Darwin, 2009 is the Year of Science and we need to revel in it. Why? Because of what science is ? Science is a cumulative, error-correcting mechanism for advancing testable knowledge. As Richard Feynman put it, “Science is what we have learned about how to not fool ourselves.” No one celebrates being fooled but what is the state of science in the Year of Science? In many ways, science could not be better, science never stands still. Galileo could not walk into an Astronomy class today and act as a substitute lecturer. Too many people want to point out the faults in Darwin’s positions but Darwin does not represent modern evolutionary theory. Today, many students arrive at college with disdain for science. Why would rational individuals have any disdain for science? Good question, but both trends are apparent and yes, here at SDSU too. The words “Got science?” were ordered removed from a 2007 Hobo Day float by an administrator; the phrase “Got science?” was deemed a “controversial theme,” inappropriate for the event. “Got science?” would not appear to be wording to result in a Torquemada pronouncement but it happened. SAAFE wouldn’t take a stand or even try it again in 2008. How could such a phrase be too controversial (or even “controversial”) for a university parade? In a time and place where people see a fable of a talking snake as biological fact, the question of “Got science?” is threatening or unappealing to many. On our campus, a paleontologist and a religious scholar drew far fewer students than alleged “ghost hunters” and a self-proclaimed “demonologist.” The student center even has a poltergeist! Incidentally, the paleontologist’s speaking fee was $500; the “demonologist” was paid $3,500 ? Not bad work, if you can get it. But one has to wonder ? Are science and critical thinking out of fashion in our zeitgeist?

In 2009, our new president promises to restore science to its rightful place; instead of asking where is the rightful place for science, shouldn’t we ask why science has to be restored to its rightful place in our country? When and why did science lose its cachet? Science is for everybody but, like a fine library or museum, science is elitist but not exclusionary. Anyone can partake, but science makes demands upon the consumer. Science is not as “user-friendly” as its alternatives but science is liberating from deception, as Feynman pointed out.

Some fifty years ago, our government introduced the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 as well as the National Defense Education Act of 1958 in response to apparent shortcomings in science education and threats to our nation’s well being. The perceived threat in the 1950s was from Godless communism; today’s threat is obviously not from the Godless. But the threat today raises the question ? Do we need another national re-emphasis on science, critical thinking and science education??